Point of Law : It is well settled proposition of law that existence of sufficient cause is sine quo non, for condonation of delay. In absence of being any finding that cause shown is sufficient delay cannot be condoned. It is true that length of delay does not matter, but what matters is existence of sufficient cause and for condoning delay a specific finding must be recorded that cause shown is sufficient. It, lacks in the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Prabhat Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajay Pratap Singh ‘Vatsa’, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and Dr. Krishna Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 04.08.2021 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur in Revision No. 1171, Ram Keval Vs. Ram Lal, Annexure No. 1 to the petition.

3. In the consolidation proceedings, the Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 04.05.1983 on the basis of some compromise said to be between the parties or their predecessor. Ram Sumer, grand father of the petitioner never challenged the order dated 04.05.1983, during his life time. On his death, the petitioner was mutated on 2.1.1994, in place of Ram Sumer as the name of Ram Sumer had continued in the revenue records. The petitioner’s father had pre-decreed Ram Sumer. Later on, in the proceedings under Rule 109A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 the order dated 04.05.1983 was implemented, and the name of the petitioner was deleted. The petitioner filed appeal before 25.03.2021, after about 38 years of the order dated 04.05.1983 with the prayer for condonation of delay inter alia on the grounds that the order dated 04.05.1983 was not in his knowledge and his name had been mutated on the death of his grand father on 2.1.1994.

4. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation, by order dated 25.03.2021 condoned the delay and directed the matter to be listed for hearing on merits. The opposite party No.2 filed revision, which has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 04.08.2021 against which, the present petition has been filed.

5. Sri Prabhat Kumar submits that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation having condoned the delay in the exercise of its discretion, the Deputy Director of Consolidation is legally not justified in interfering with such direction, which was to advance substantial justice, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Act. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Shanti Prasad Gupta Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Camp at Meerut reported in 1984 RD page 382 (SC). He further placed reliance on judgment of this Court in the case of Paras Nath Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti reported in 2002 (93) R.D. 764 in support of his contention that the order condoning the delay is an interlocutory order and the revision was not maintainable. He has further placed reliance in the case of State of Jharkhand and others Vs. Ashok Kumar Chokhani and others (2009) 2 SCC667 in support of his contention that while deciding an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the merits of the case could not be gone into.

6. Sri Ajay Pratap Singh ‘Vatsa’, submits that the delay was inordinate, of 38 years, in filing the appeal. The petitioner’s grand father Ram Sumer did not challenge the order dated 4.5.1983 during his life time. The order dated 4.5.1983 was recorded in revenue records in the year 1994 but inspite thereof, the petitioner did not challenge the same for 27 years. There was no sufficient cause to condone the delay, but the Settlement Officer of Consolidation not only allowed the application without recording any finding in favour of the petitioner on the point of sufficient cause, but also made vital observations on the merits of the case and as such the order has been rightly set aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

7. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

8. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has set aside the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on the ground that Ram Sumer during his life time did not challenge the order dated 04.05.1983. It has also recorded that for the cause of delay as mentioned therein, that the petitioner was minor in the year 1983, no evidence of